Leaderboard

! Moderator Note OK, that’s enough. BS limit has been exceeded.

The Scots and Welsh know the US would recolonize the UK. You spend far too much on public interests like healthcare, you only have like 50 billionaires, and your workers want fair accommodations as if they were really important. You participate far too much in your own economy with all that vacationing, and all that history is bogging you down with old buildings and protected reserves. We can show you how to pave over England's pleasant pastures so you can be just like us!

I personally have no use for your diluted version of consciousness. It is so broad as to make it impractical. Similarly, I don't want to read an article about how shoe laces are made that starts with the assembly of Pangaea.

Peoples' identity is often tied to the group they belong to. It is incredibly important to be a part of that. That is where your friends are. You have a lot invested in the group. If you deny the beliefs of your group you are ostracizing yourself and cutting yourself off from an important part of your life. For many people it is better to not look too closely, or to entertain questions which in the long run can do you harm. I overlook things my family members do that I would find unacceptable in others. People vote for candidates in their political party who are clearly unqualified. It is a lot more common than many people recognize.

I realised you were being sarky, but thought it was a rather profound point nonetheless. When I lived for a couple of years in Houston TX, it took me a while to find out why I felt I didn't fit in and what I thought was lacking. In the Netherlands, by contrast, I felt at home in about a month. It really all boiled down to history, or relative lack thereof. New World countries, like the Americas and Australasia have an admirable energy and sense of the possible that we in the Old World have long since given up on. But we do have all the riches of history instead, which give us a certain groundedness. The backlash against globalisation is creating a new and ugly nationalist politics on both sides of the Atlantic. But recent polls show the British are now realising Brexit, at least in the absurdly extreme, ideological form in which it has been enacted, was a mistake. I think we are past the high water mark of naïve nationalism. I'm not too worried by private firms in the NHS, really. GPs have always been private, and the continental healthcare model, which often involves profit-making hospitals being block-contracted to the national health system, does not fill me with terror. My analysis of the US Healthcare system, on the other hand, is it is a broken market because there are two parties on the buying side of the equation, one with no market power and the other with no incentive to drive a hard bargain. The insurers have little incentive to query the bills for drugs and treatment and shop around - they just pass the costs through to employers' healthcare plans. And employees have no choice but to pay the premiums. A national healthcare system that buys care centrally from providers, on the other hand, has huge purchasing power and can really drive a bargain (as drug companies know to their cost, when selling to the British NHS.)

AFAIK, expansion of the universe is a GR effect, and it cannot be consistently described in term of Newtonian mechanics. Specifically, there is no Newtonian 'F' in GR formulation. Einstein field equations, EFE, relate geometry of spacetime (LHS of the equations) with distribution of energy-momentum in the spacetime (RHS). To get an accelerated expansion in these equations, you need either an extra term on the LHS or an extra term on the RHS. The former leads to inclusion of a "cosmological constant" in the EFE. The latter leads to inclusion of a peculiar energy source in the universe, the "dark energy."

Dark energy is not required for the universe to expand, it is needed to explain why the rate of expansion has been increasing over time. The original assumption was that, starting from some initial impetus, the universe began to expand, and that over time, the mutual gravitational attraction of its matter would slow the expansion rate. From this there were two possibilities: 1. Gravity would eventually win, the universe would stop expanding and then collapse back in on itself. 2. The universe didn't have quite enough mass to stop the expansion completely, and it would continue to expand forever. The study that opened the whole dark energy can of worms was trying to determine which of these was true. What they did was measure the recession velocity of various galaxies at various distances. Since the further a galaxy is from us the longer it took its light to reach us, you were looking further and further into the past as you looked at more and more distant galaxies. You then plot a distance/recession graph. If the rate of expansion had been constant over time, you would get a straight line. Of course, this was not what they expected to see, they expected to get a curve, the degree of which would indicate how fast the expansion was slowing. They got a curve, but one that curved the opposite direction, indicating that the expansion rate had increased over time. Something was causing it to speed up. They settled on calling it "dark energy" just for the simple fact that the term "dark matter" had already been in usage (And this is the only thing the two have in common). As to the exact nature of dark energy, it is still an unsolved mystery.

There was a time when most of the universe was an unexplored place. Today we have thanks to time machines, hubble telescopes etc, what it takes to have gleaned the depths of the known universe. You will say there is a lot to be discovered yet; but how much of those discoveries would make the progress of mankind a less futile objective? We have for example invented everything of practical importance there is to invent; the light bulb, facebook, the wheel, electricity etc. The human race appears to have stagnated in the annals of scientific discovery. Again, no doubt there are stuff out there to learn about science, like for example, how many toes does a virus on Mars have? How far does one have to walk from point A to point B on Pluto to obtain fresh water? Any possibilitity of setting up a restaurant on the moon? All these childish attempts at discovery, leave them to people like Trump to discover. But as far as science has progressed, havent we already run the course of novelty?

I'm assuming you're made of matter, so no. I reckon you would have to make an antimatter copy of yourself and send it to an antimatter version of the past environment you would like to be in. Here's the answer, in the form of a well-known poem by physicist Harold P. Furth, A.E.C. stands for "Atomic Energy Comission, and the poem refers to the certainty that any close interaction between matter and anti-matter would end up in a burst of gamma rays. You touch any sizeable amount of antimatter, and you're done.

the point i was trying to make was, if we can overcome those obstacles in the pursuit of the Time Machine, we would be closer to building one. And in my opinion, those seem to be the obstacles we need to overcome. It's got to be something to do with photons, the only thing that can travel at the speed of light, and we absolutely must travel at the speed of light to surpass it, etc. 1. I dunno what continuity is, but by 'person' i guess i mean 'particle, or object. Anything, as long as it can surpass the time space barrier and go back in time; a first step towards acheiving time travel. If as I vaguely recollect, CERN already did that, then how can we expand the CERN time space tube thing to fit a entire human being into it? With a wide enough time space accelerator, we could send entire continents back in time, one step at a time. 2.I didn't quite follow question 2; but I gather that one needs '3D time' to pass through it? Well, what is 3D time, and how does one achieve it? But I was aware that if you passed the light barrier you would go back in time, does 3D time factor into that, and how if so?

They are running out of material. The above is a verbatim copy of the below:

There may well be a certain amount of incredulity built into the process (it's hard to imagine what hasn't been dreamed up yet). I think there's also an intellectually lazy path that tells some folks it's easier to claim that science is stagnating so they don't have to bother studying it at great length. It's so much easier to claim it's not worth your while than to actually learn it.

Well, we still don't have a warp drive. Physics has already stagnated for the last half century (because of relativity, IMO), but there's certainly plenty more out there to be discovered.

As a singer, my suspicion is that it may have something to do with the vowels involved. I don't think consonants echo very effectively (complex transient waveforms, including a lot of high frequency components). So I think what you hear is mainly the vowels. The sounds that will echo the best will be the open vowel sounds, as these have the simplest waveform (closest to sinusoidal, with fewest high frequency components). The English "I" is a diphthong, consisting of AAA and EEE. The "o" of love is AAAH and the "ou" of you is OOO. AAA and OOO are open, while EEE is not. So in the case of "I", The EEE won't echo very well and the preceding AAA is very short. So you hear mainly the following longer AAA and OOO. At least, that would be my best guess.

1) subjective feeling 2) you are deaf 3) environment (reflected sound has too low volume toward you). eg. in an anechoic chamber, no echo can be heard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anechoic_chamber 4) interference with previous words Everything is an echo, your ear does not receive sound directly. The sound reverberates through it several times.

I don't think that anyone really answered the question, because the argument the question is about uses assumptions that aren't that obvious. The statement "Force is proportional to mass" is somewhat imprecise; the fully precise statement is "Force is proportional to mass when acceleration is held constant." That is, if you have two masses which are accelerating in the same way, then the force on one divided by its mass will equal the force on the other divided by its mass. Alternatively, for any situation with forces and masses, F/m is a function of the acceleration. Similarly, the statement "Force is proportional to acceleration" is imprecise, with a more precise version being "Force is proportional to acceleration when mass is held constant." If you have two objects with the same mass, the force on one divided by its acceleration will equal the force on the other divided by its acceleration. F/a is a function of the mass. So we have that F/m = f(a) for some function f, and F/a = g(m) for some function g. Then F/ma = f(a)/a = g(m)/m. f(a)/a is also a function of acceleration independent of mass, and g(m)/m is also a function of mass independent of acceleration. And the only way that can happen is if f(a)/a = g(m)/m is constant - is independent of both mass and acceleration. Call that constant C. Then F = C*ma - in other words, force is proportional to the product of mass and acceleration.

As MigL (+1) has noted, direct proportionality between two variables is the starting point for this. But a variable (force, F in this case) can be proportional to more than one variable at the ame time. In with your example, Force, F, is directly proportional to the mass of a body all other influences be held constant. It is also proportional to acceleratio, again all other influences be held constant. When this happens, the dependent variable (F) is given by the product of the two influencing variables as in F = ma. (Sometimes there will be three or more variables then we have a triple product. This happens in fluid mechanics and electronic signal theory) This is very good and very important mathematically because the variables are 'separated', which means we can deal with them separately or independently. Separation of variables is the method of solution for some of the most important equations in Physics. Going back to two variables, one directly proportional to the other I would add to MigL's description that a graph or plot of one variable against the other is a straight line graph through the origin. Straight lines not through the origin, are not representative of direct proportionality.

Engineers should never design systems that make the engineer redundant.

In the words of George Costanza (Season 3, episode 9, The Nose Job), "You can't stop modern science. You can't stop it. You can't stop it. Can't stop science. Can't be stopped. No way, no how, science just marches..."

not at all; im just exploring various avenues of thought. for instance; we either did stagnate at scientific novelty or we didn't. if we didn't, what practical inventions could we come up with in the future? Have we not stagnated at human happiness; if we haven't; what possible inventions to further contribute to said happiness? etc yes, i agree relativity was the ultimate milestone leap, and on that note, would it be too far to say on an invention of a time machine could be the next big scientific invention on the blocks? never said it wasnt worth my time to study; it certainly would be if there was any practical use studying it beyond what it's already been traveresed. I am one of the unbelievers in that regard; i contend no matter how far we go, we will never extravagantly better the human race via scientific invention than we already have unless we come up with absurd inventions like A Time machine (now THAT would be a good one, I'd go back in time and unvote Trump) A elixir of life That sort of thing. And as you yourself would say, "Jesus" stuff aint science. Oh well then depends on your definition of 'science'. if science doesnt contribute to the furtherance of humanity, isn't it more of a sport, or an art form? Like the Mona lisa, the science of painting the mona lisa, doesnt benefit anybody that aint da vinci or van gogh. quantum computing, now we talkin'. quatum physics, the purveyor of the time machine, the only viable invention of importance in that region of science. alright then the question becomes one of determining what 'the critical mass of knowledge and capability' for this era is. Can we determine such via an algorithm for instance? if bronze age man had an algorithm to determine that the 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' of his era was 'lets build iron tools' he'd have ended up building time machines in no time. such is definitely the case with the impending invention of the time machine imo. better theory is called for before we can figure out conclusively how to build that part of the spaceship/ufo that can traverse the light barrier. We know traversing the light barrier = back in time We know vaguely what it takes to build such a invention (photons; that which reaches light-like speeds, etc) But more research is called for.

Is antimatter the answer? I vaguely grope at terms like antimatter, the big bang theory the matrix and parallel dimensions, as I try to find a way to build a time machine. Certainly factors like the light barrier, the theory of relativity, and quantum physics would play a role in the building of this hypothetical time machine But like Einstein came up with a formula for the traversing of the Time barrier, is it possible to come up with a technique, of hypothetical model for a time machine? Surely we can envision how to build certain parts of that time machine. And yet a lot of it's makeup would still be murky For example, "What you need to build the engine that would see the time machine breaking the light barrier:" 1. A racetrack in outer space conducive to acceleration beyond the normal range 2.A time machine capable of withstanding immense speeds (so diamond plated armour?) 3.A substance that can travel at the speed of light (so far only photons travel at the speed of light so for instance, is it possible to create 'Photon Fuel' like causing momentum by virtue of photons? Can photons be harnessed and used to power a time machine's speed? Isn't that the only way to create a time machine? Or can we affix cameras at the end of photon beams, so we can witness what life is like at the edge of the light barrier? Maybe there's angels of light living on that edge. Who knows?

Where are we headed? To answer this question, its important to consider the obvious facts: history revolves in circles. The cosmic equation, if there were one, is inclined to go round and round like a merrygoround. In other words, what has happened before must happen again and again and again. Does the bee not buzz repetitively? Do humans not reproduce, and die, then live, and die again in that order, eternally? 'Course they do. And that manifestation of cyclic rebirth and death, of a myriad forms of existence, is surely a big player in the question of 'where is the universe headed?' I reckon we've been going round and round like that merry go round ever since the big bang happened. WW2 for instance, was WW1 incarnate in a different time space continuum, as it were. WW3, well it's around the corner, very likely, going by what's happening in Russia. The crimea, the boer war, the medivial wars, all were fought again and again. Only the weaponry were more advanced with every successive war. The sticks and stones gave way to the biplanes and triplanes, which gave way to the dogfights with supersonic jets in the modern era. The world, history, travels in circles. Round and round. To discern where we are headed, look to the past. Where were we once upon a time? As far as the generalities go, we were always where we were. Therefore the basic goals of humanity have always been the same, will always be the same.

oh wait...you're point is he had a levitation lever hidden in his sleeve? Well, sure, there's fake levitators out there But THIS video confirms the truth about levitation: it can also be real 3:44 has the levitation part. He is levitating bare chested. No tricks, no hidden levitating mechanisms. Warning: The dude is levitating in his underwear, so graphic content ahead. 'if' it's been on AGT, it must be fake.. people walk away with millions of pounds on the basis of the tricks they perform on AGT. Some tricks are just tricks or the mind, it's in the nature of the performance to be tricks of the mind, and like sleight of hand, entertainment purposes only, not to be believed literarily... BUT The reason levitation tricks are considered worthy is inherently because of the ability to go beyond the normal boundaries of science. If that were not so, the judges would give the levitations a red buzzer. The whole point of levitation is: People can levitate, its official. Its not like 'trick of the mind' its just a trick for entertainment Matter of fact nothing entertaining about a person floating a few feet above ground level!? Shaolin monk window cleaners....apply to Tibet Window Cleaner Agencies they are accustomed to cleaning windows of houses 1000 feet above ground level on the summits of Everest